Chirimar, J. L., "Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1995).  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....object logics will be specified in Forum using only flat Forum clauses. 1.3. 3 Applications of Forum Forum specifications have been presented for the operational semantics of programming languages containing side effects, concurrency features, references, exceptions, continuations, and objects [BDLM96, Chi95, DM95, Mil96]. Chirimar [Chi95] used Forum to present the semantics of a RISC processor and Chakravarty [Cha97] used it to specify the logical and operational semantics of a parallel programming language. A specification of a sequent calculus for intuitionistic logic was also given by Miller in [Mil96] that ....

....Forum using only flat Forum clauses. 1.3. 3 Applications of Forum Forum specifications have been presented for the operational semantics of programming languages containing side effects, concurrency features, references, exceptions, continuations, and objects [BDLM96, Chi95, DM95, Mil96] Chirimar [Chi95] used Forum to present the semantics of a RISC processor and Chakravarty [Cha97] used it to specify the logical and operational semantics of a parallel programming language. A specification of a sequent calculus for intuitionistic logic was also given by Miller in [Mil96] that example was ....

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

.... For example, Miller outlines a translation from the # calculus into linear logic: processes become LL propositions and # calculus reduction becomes LL entailment [Mil92] These ideas are generalized and reformulated as a logical framework in Miller s proposal for the specification logic Forum [Mil96, Chi95]. Forum o#ers a paradigm for viewing logic programming as concurrent computation, and so it is likely that the logic programming interpretation for CLF will draw heavily from it. However, in Forum proofs cannot be manipulated as first class objects not even cut elimination is treated, let al..one ....

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, May 1995.

.... Eigenvariables as fresh, scoped constants Focusing on their intensional nature and guarantee of newness or freshness in proof search, eigenvariables have been used to encode name restrictions in the calculus [15] nonces in security protocols [1] reference locations in imperative programming [2, 16], and constructors hidden within abstract data types [12] Eigenvariables also provide an essential : y : B[y=x] C : r x:B; C rL : y : B[y=x] r x:B rR Figure 1. Rules for the r quantifier. aspect of recursive programming with data encoded ....

....the small step approach (a.k.a. structured operational semantic) or big step approach (a.k.a. natural semantics) Frequently, the specification of such semantics requires new symbols to be created to be used for such things as nonces in security protocols [1] locations for reference cells [2, 16], or new communication channels [19] Given the logic FO , we now have the ability to scope variables within sequents either globally via 8 or locally via r. We illustrate these choices with a specification of the calculus. 5 :P j Q ....

J. Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

....is captured by cut elimination (normalization) steps over linear logic derivations. A second direction, which may be identified with the slogan proofs as traces (and formulas as processes) models dynamic process behaviors as proof search, generally in the style of (linear) logic programming [MOM91,And92,Mil92,KY93,Chi95,Cer95]. CLF follows this second path, stressing a one to one correspondence between CLF proof terms and process executions (traces) CPWW02] CLF di#ers from most of these proposals in two respects: first, it is a fully fledged logical framework, which means that it expresses not only the constructs of ....

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, May 1995.

....properties of the object logics systems. There are various other calculi, such as the join and ambient calculi, in which names and name restriction are prominent and we plan to test this style of encoding with them. Generic judgments have been used to model names for references and exceptions [Mil96,Chi95] and it would be interesting to see if this style of encoding can help in reasoning about programming language semantics containing such features. Comparing this particular encoding of the # calculus with those of others, for example, HMS01,Des00,RHB01] should be done in some detail. Finally, ....

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

....directly from elementary properties of unions. r Proposition 5.8 Let C1 , C2 and Co , C2 be arrows in C. If It] factors through Im[r] F ) for some subobject F of [C2] then t is an instance of r in C and It] factors through [r ] n particular, there is an arrow Co , C1 such that t = 9r and [9 ] factors through F. Proof. Consider the diagram . Co] 11 11 ( where elm [r] F) is an epi monic image factorization of F[r] and each [C ] is a representable functor in Set c, and therefore projective. The projectivity of [Co ] implies that the arrow u (which exists by the ....

....c, and therefore projective. The projectivity of [Co ] implies that the arrow u (which exists by the hypothesis that It] factors through Im [r] F) lifts to an arrow making the diagram commute. Let f = F. The source and target of f are representable, so by the fullness of the Yoneda embedding, f: [9] for some substitution 9, and [9] r ] It] By faithfulness of the Yoneda embedding, 9r = t. 5.5 The Approximate Interpretations and their Properties Definition 5.9 The sequence of operational interpretations [ 0, 1, In, is given by [Xi(t) the unique map 0 Lb] and [Xi(t) l = ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

....programming languages [4, 15, 27] abstract machines [16] and process calculi [26] Various recent papers suggest that linear logic [11] can be used as well to make this style of specification more expressive. For example, specifications of imperative and concurrent programming language features [5, 6, 9, 23, 24] and the sequential and concurrent (pipe line) semantics of a RISC processor [6] have been modeled using linear logic. A key property of such encodings is that there exists a computation in a certain system if and only if there is a proof of a certain judgment from the set of clauses that encodes ....

....recent papers suggest that linear logic [11] can be used as well to make this style of specification more expressive. For example, specifications of imperative and concurrent programming language features [5, 6, 9, 23, 24] and the sequential and concurrent (pipe line) semantics of a RISC processor [6] have been modeled using linear logic. A key property of such encodings is that there exists a computation in a certain system if and only if there is a proof of a certain judgment from the set of clauses that encodes that computation system. If we were interested in capturing properties based on ....

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

....of an ) are attempted with empty bounded contexts: the bounded contexts, here Delta and A, are divided up and used in attempts to prove those goals immediately to the left of Gammaffi. 6. 4 Further readings The material in this section is taken largely from the paper [Mil96] In his PhD thesis [Chi95], Chirimar presents specifications of the operation semantics of a programming language similar to Standard ML. He is able to give a modular specification of call by value evaluation, of exceptions, of references, and of continuations. He was also able to proved various identities concerning ....

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

....areas of Computer Science, and it has concrete prospects of influencing the field of security protocol analysis in a similar way. As a specification language, linear logic has been used to provide elegant and effective representations of many systems that share characteristics with cryptoprotocols [8, 9, 17, 18]. The natural embedding of concurrent systems in linear logic [15, 20] in particular in its graphbased presentations [16] is also likely to be relevant, given the interpretation of security protocols as concurrent systems [1, 40] Work on meta reasoning in linear logic [32] promises to address ....

Chirimar, J. L. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

....the top level logical connective of B. According to this definition of uniformity, Forum can be considered an Abstract Logic Programming Language (Miller et al. 1991) Some examples of applications of Forum as high level specification language for different programming paradigms can be found in (Chirimar 1995; Delzanno and Martelli 1995; Guglielmi 95; Hodas and Polakow 1996) As remarked in (Hodas and Polakow 1996) further refinement seem necessary to consider Forum as a logic programming language. The main problem of this approach is that Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 9 Gamma; Delta ....

J. Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

....in a type. Even if HOAS cannot be used to avoid problems with bound variables and substitution in SML as described in the Definition, it may be possible to reformulate the semantics in a way that allows an efficient encoding using HOAS. Some preliminary work in this area has been done in [Chirimar95]. 116 Appendix A Semantics of HOL SML HOL SML is the language about which we proved our theorems. It started out as Core SML modified as per Stefan Kahrs suggestions as to how to fix the semantics to allow type preservation to be proved. Through the course of the work presented here, that ....

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages, PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

....modern and powerful specification languages. Specific features have been separately studied in previous works: object orientation and concurrency in LO [3, 2] and ACL [29] deductive databases in [27] logic programming in [25] communicating processes in [35] imperative programming paradigms in [11, 38], and transition systems in [42] The importance of such works is not limited to the development of new high level languages. In fact, they can help in the analysis of declarative programs properties and in the verification of their correctness. Experimental results in this field have been ....

J. Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

....by the uses of implementations of linear logic programming languages. Lygon is a linear language that has been used directly to represent changing systems [11] Forum is another language with a linear essence that has been used to embed the calculus as well as to directly specify hardware systems [5]. These are full implementations of Linear Logic, providing programming environments, but they do not provide interactive proof environments which can be useful for verification through interactive theorem proving. Temporal logic is a natural formalism for specifying systems with a sequential ....

Jawahar L. Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

....is a ground instance of D. The formula D can be selected in two ways: D;P ; Delta D A D;P ; Delta A decide 1 P ; Delta D A P ; Delta; D A decide 2 provided that A is a multiset of atomic formulas. We will also use the cutelimination theorem which holds for the following cut rules [Chi95]: P ; Delta 1 B; Omega 1 P ; B; Delta 2 Omega 2 P ; Delta 1 ; Delta 2 Omega 1 ; Omega 2 cut 1 P ; B B; P ; Delta Omega P ; Delta Omega cut 2 In the rest of the paper we use udentifiers beginning with capital letters, e.g. R; S; T; to denote universally ....

J. Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

No context found.

Chirimar, J. L., "Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1995).

No context found.

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, May 1995.

No context found.

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, May 1995.

No context found.

Chirimar, J. L., "Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1995).

No context found.

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhDthesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

No context found.

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhDthesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

No context found.

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

No context found.

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

No context found.

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, May 1995.

No context found.

Jawahar Lal Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, May 1995.

No context found.

Jawahar Chirimar. Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC